"vicente.botet" <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<014201c8937c$c1380180$0301a8c0@viboes1>...

Hello,

First of all, I think that a pimpl library should have a place in boost, but I think that the pimpl idiom do not scale very well (see below).

Even if your library is usable in simple cases, I would like to see how it can manage more complex cases. And if no satisfactory solution to this case is possible, that the library states explicitly when it can not be used.

Would it be possible to elaborate that exactly you mean by "more complex cases"? Inheriting from a pimpl-based class? I think it covered. What else? Not like my own deployment experience is of any guidance but still I've been using this idiom in my every-day development for about a year and have not come across something that I felt was not a good fit for that idiom. I'd rather say that the pimpl idiom in general does not handle well simple (rather than complex) cases where the overhead of creating private implementation on the heap is not affordable.

Do you think to write the library documentation before the review? Even

if

there is a tutorial in DDJ, IMHO, you should spend some time on the documentation of the library before the review.

In addition to the tutorial I have API documented in the header in the format for doxygen. Although I have to confess when I did run it through doxygen it did not seem to produce anything I saw valuable so I did not include that doxygen-generated file. Will look into it again though. Thanks, Vladimir.